A recent
study in the journal Scienceshows
that the shrinkage of glaciers will cause a lack in water sources for
crops, ultimately leading to food shortages for approximately 60
million people living near the Himalayas. This study is one of the
first to observe the effect melting glaciers have on the Himalayan
river basins, and could possibly further provoke the existing debate
that climate change will destroy river basins located mostly in
Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, China and Bhutan.

Dutch
scientists Marc Bierkens, Walter Immerzee and Ludovicus Van Beek –
who conducted the study and wrote in the journal -- concluded that
basins around the Himalayas such as the Indus, Ganges and
Brahamaputra depend on the melting
glaciers to water their crops, and could see a 19.6 percent
decline in their water supply by 2050.

"We
estimate that the food security of 4.5 percent of the total
population will be threatened as a result of reduced water
availability," the researchers wrote. "The strong need for
prioritizing adaptation options and further increasing water
productivity is therefore eminent."

This
new study largely contrasts the U.N. report in 2007, where the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change estimated that hundreds of millions of
people were in danger from the receding glaciers. According to the
scientists, the reason for the "discrepancy" is that only
some basins in this area depend on the glaciers. Others, such as
China's Yellow River basin, obtain their water from rainfall and are
expected to see a 9.5 percent increase in water supply due to the
changing climate altering the pattern of monsoons.

"We
show that it's only certain areas that will be affected," said
Bierkens. "The amount of people affected is still large. Every
person is one too many but it's much less than was first
anticipated."

In
addition, the U.N. report included other errors such as the Himalayas
disappearing by 2035, when actual data indicates that this will
happen by 2350. Client
change skeptics attacked this inaccuracy, which in fact, was
just a mistake in transposing the numbers.

Most
scientists agree that "glaciers are melting at an accelerated
rate as
temperatures increase," and that the reason is related to
the higher "atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such
as carbon dioxide." Evidence for this appears in the
considerable losses seen in glaciers across the Andes, Alaska, the
Alps and several other ranges. According to researchers in the United
States and Europe, "more than 90 percent of glaciers worldwide
are in retreat."

Researchers
who did not take part in the study, such as Zhongqin Li, director of
the Tianshan Glaciological Station in China, noted that the
scientists performing the study disregarded many other basins in
central Asia and northwest China which
will be affected by the glacial losses. Other glacial experts and
scientists warned that "uncertainties and lack of data for the
region makes it difficult to say what will happen in the next few
decades to the water supply." While many researchers are
skeptical of exact numbers in the study, they do agree that
there should
be a concern for those living in the glacial-dependent
basins due to climate change. In addition, problems like pollution,
overpopulation and poverty are added stress to the situation.

"The
paper teaches us that there's a lot of uncertainty in the future
water supply of Asia and within the realm of plausibility are
scenarios that may give us concern," said Casey Brown, an
assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the
University of Massachusetts.

"At
present, we know that water concerns are already a certainty - the
large and growing populations and high dependence on irrigated
agriculture which makes the region vulnerable to present climate
variability.

"This
paper is additional motivation to address these present concerns
through wise investments in better management of water
resources in the region, which for me means forecasts,
incentives, efficiency."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: You had better forward your own research to the experts, you know, the actual scientists with degrees in things like atmospheric physics, who know what they're talking about because they have the proper education in the field of discussion. Your info could set them all straight! I bet you could even win a Nobel Prize for environmental physics.

You mean the ones who sullied all true science when they perpetrated Climategate?

To cut off what I see as a probable comeback from the people in denial about climate, and probably many other things too, I don't blindly believe the things in these videos because I want to, I believe them because they present good science with facts to back up their claims, not wild speculation and emotional opinions.

Right because someone named "greenman" would clearly be unbiased? Are you fucking retarded? How are biased YouTube video's in ANY WAY some kind of "proof" ?

If you dug a bit deeper, you would see that the "investigation" into Climategate was a complete joke. No law enforcement officials, you know, those who actually investigate for a living, were even involved. EAST ANGLIA UNIVERSITY is doing the "investigation"!! Hello?? It doesn't take a genius to figure out what their findings would be. Do you actually believe they are going to investigate themselves, and say anything OTHER than everything was ok and this was just a big misunderstanding? God you're an idiot. At the very least that is a HUGE conflict of interest.

Climategate is being whitewashed and explained away. Well you can draw your own conclusions if you wish. But when your only hard proof is the party accused of wrongdoing investigating itself and saying "Surprise! Everything is on the level" well.... good luck with that.

More than 1 group has investigated the issue, including the Associated Press. I read the article a while back (On a quick search I can't find the article hosted on their site, but any search on Google will turn up loads of search results referencing the article when it was still current) - as far as I've seen, they all pointed to no fraud (However there is a consensus that individual conduct and behavior was questionable, but no fraud as far as the facts are concerned as opponents of climate change would suggest)

Right. Clearly another organization that truly embraces telling it like it is!

/sarcasm

quote: The fact remains that the majority of scientists agree that Climate Change is real.

Yeah now THAT is another Leftist talking point that's been dispelled more times than I can count. Sorry but there is no scientific consensus that Man Made Climate Change is real. In fact, it's THE most debated issue in years.

quote: You are choosing to ignore this fact because it does not align with your political-fed beliefs.

No I'm just equipped with common sense, critical thinking, and the ability to see through bullcrap. You, on the other hand, are a simple minded gullible fool.

quote: Yeah now THAT is another Leftist talking point that's been dispelled more times than I can count. Sorry but there is no scientific consensus that Man Made Climate Change is real. In fact, it's THE most debated issue in years.

Not even close. Please provide the above proof that you reference. I usually refrain from posting Wikipedia links, but it holds a good amount of references on the subject that you can individually verify if you wish.

And a quick Google search could produce literally thousands of other sources in agreement. Although, I assume you will say that every single one of those sources is not reputable, for no reason other than they don't fit your belief.

More and more, I see that you must be just an internet troll. I don't know why I waste my time replying to you. For someone that has all the time in a day to comment on DailyTech, you sure don't put too much time into doing research on the subjects in which you speak.

So let me get this straight, a consensus of people getting paid to say there's a consensus, proved the theory is fact?

I love how you constantly refer to this consensus instead of actually debating the theory with me. Like this is some kind of popularity contest! What are you, 12?

There was a time when a consensus of scientists agreed Earth was the center of the Universe and the world was flat. Einsteins theory of relativity was once laughed at. Oh and by the way, in the 1970's a "consensus" of scientists agreed we were heading for a global killer ICE AGE!

quote: Right because someone named "greenman" would clearly be unbiased?

What does a person's chosen name have to with facts? According to you, regardless of the facts, someone is right or wrong based on their name alone. Could it be that because he is well informed with the facts that he has chosen to do what he can to try and help other people and our planet to have a better future, and chosen a name in line with that? No, you're right, truth is all in a name and nothing else.

quote: How are biased YouTube video's in ANY WAY some kind of "proof" ?

Similarly, what does the medium of a source of factual information have to do with the credibility of the info? If he appears on CNN or Fox News would that make it any more or less credible? Nope, turns out that facts are facts no matter where or how they're presented. Welcome to reality.

Peter Sinclair, the author of the Greenman3610 channel is a graphic artist, illustrator, animator, and advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives (not a scientist). He is not a scientist. That doesn't change the facts that he represents in his informational videos. Did you even bother to watch one or were you too biased against his name? He collects factual data from scientific, peer-reviewed papers and presents it in an easy to understand manner for the lay-person (you and me).

quote: No law enforcement officials, you know, those who actually investigate for a living, were even involved.

"If you had dug a bit deeper you would see that the 'investigation' into Climategate" did include law enforcement officials. I found this in under a minute, how deep did you dig?:Police probe UEA climate scientist over Climategatehttp://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59380,news-comment,n...

quote: The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. Climate change sceptics's allegations that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy.The UEA and CRU issued rebuttals of the allegations.[5] Additionally, the Norfolk Constabulary is conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach.

The Norfolk Constabulary is the territorial police force responsible for the county of Norfolk in England. As of March 2009 the force had a strength of 1,668 police officers, 243 Special Constables, 277 PCSOs and just over 1,300 police staff. Does that count as law enforcement officials, you know, those who actually investigate for a living?

Damn, all that digging was tough work, I can see why you didn't bother. So much effort to type in <East Anglia University investigation> into Google.

Care to vomit any more false information or blatant lies on the forums here so you can be corrected and publicly humiliated for your overemotional, undereducated, misinformed, and biased opinions? It's painfully clear that all you have are your opinions because you offer no valid information to substantiate any of your wild claims.

He won't go there. He'll pretend it didn't happen. Just like he'll pretend the Earth hasn't, in fact, been cooling for the last 6 years. Just like he'll gloss over how the theory went from Global Warming to "Climate Change". He'll also ignore the fact that the supposed increase in violent storms hasn't happened as predicted by Climate Change, the past two hurricane seasons have been very mild. Just like he's pretending Climategate didn't show how the scientific pier review process can be tainted.

I'm not saying there is no evidence supporting man made Climate Change, but the fact is there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Most studies STILL ignore solar output, which we know to not be a constant and has a major impact on our global temperatures.

But hey, I'm just some looney extremist racist uneducated right wing activist hired by Daily Tech to boost readership...

Did you actually read the articles you "dug" up? The first one, the police were probing HOW the leak happened. Not actually investigating East Anglia for fraud.

The second one, the police are questioning those who requested information from the Climate Center. What part of investigating ClimateGate did you not apparently understand? Police probing how the hack happened isn't the same as saying there is an ongoing investigation into East Anglia's conduct of Global Warming research. But nice try.

IN fact I'm pretty sure NO local police force would be equipped for this. It would fall on some Government or International organization.

quote: Damn, all that digging was tough work, I can see why you didn't bother. So much effort to type in <East Anglia University investigation> into Google.

I think in your haste for disproving me, you never actually read the stories. Google is great but it's not a substitute for using your brain and deductive skills.

quote: Peter Sinclair, the author of the Greenman3610 channel is a graphic artist, illustrator, animator, and advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives (not a scientist). He is not a scientist.

So basically he's a biased tree hugger, and I'm supposed to be shocked at what side of this debate he is on? I mean don't you honestly think someone like that would be HIGHLY motivated with the whole "global warming" thing? Come on, be honest for once.